Baidarka

Do some people pretend to believe the ridiculous simply because they want to? Do people who believe that professional wrestling is real, really not see the punches that don't connect, the stomps that miss and the evident choreography that makes this entertainment what it is? I believe that some things are just fun to believe in and that the believers are getting so much enjoyment from their beliefs that they are willing to give up some of their reality for pleasures sake.
Religions provide comfort, a sense of belonging to something special, and a big Daddy to ask for things from. I think that many people will themselves to believe, sort of, or at least to turn off the questioning part of their brains in order to derive the benefits that religions can confer. I'm saying that many people pretend to believe the unbelievable, but deep down they know that it is fake even as they protest loudly that their beliefs are real. In other words the religious "hypocrites" are really normal healthy people who pretend to believe in silly things but really are quite pragmatic in that they use religion and are not used by it. For some God is simply a means to political power. For some a drug to help them get to sleep at night. For some God helps them to control their children.
Did Jim Baker believe in God as he used religion to steal from his gullible followers? Did his gullible followers really believe or were they willing themselves to believe in order to derive some other kind of benefit?

Defiant Heretic

Religious belief allows us to avoid being depressed by the fact that there really is not greater meaning of life. Some people believe, simply because it's just too painful not to.

Some people believe because they were brought up to do so, and they simply haven't given it any thought beyond that. This is the demographic that goes to church on Christmas and Easter (or sometimes every Sunday), but doesn't even care enough to think about whether god exists or not.

Other people blindly believe, and will not question their beliefs no matter what. This is the militant wing of the above demographic.

And, of course, some people have thought about it, but still decide that there is a god, based on arguments such as Pascal’s Wager or the writings of Thomas Aquinas.

Heathen Dawn

Atheism has low emotional appeal. There is no logical reason for me to worship God and Goddess, but I find it much more pleasing than not worshipping anything.

sighhswolf

"Did Jim Baker believe in God as he used religion to steal from his gullible followers? Did his gullible followers really believe or were they willing themselves to believe in order to derive some other kind of benefit?"

Amazing huh?
Do you realize that smack in the middle of the investigation and indictment of Jimbo, those folks who were taken advantage of were calling for his release and reinstatement to his ministry?
It is a constant source of irritation to me when
I see people who know they have been lied to, but chose to ignore the deceptions because it is religion.
I really dont understand how when presented with hard evidence of deception some ignore the evidence like it isnt there, or fabricate some lameass excuse to justify the action/inaction involved.

If I find that an institution has been operating
by deceptive actions and deliberate misdirection,
I will more than likely sever my ties with that organization, because I know that if one lie is told, others will follow and the trust is broken.
Once that trust is violated, how can you continue to believe?

Christianity loudly touts that it's doctrine based on "truth", the truth of god, the truth of the bible and the gospels, the truth of the ministry of jesus and so on...and on...
Even in the face of overwhelming and solid evidence that the institution has used deception in it's presentation, the believers chose to ignore that deception is if it never existed or isnt relevant to their faith.

I am looking at the "Donation of Constantine".
I know this is old stuff but it bears repeating once in a while so that reality is at least attempted to be presented.
I remember reading about the controversy surrounding this document and realizing that it has had a huge effect on christianity in general
and it's bid for power and control over the population.
This document was dated March 30, 315. .
What the document proclaimed was that the Pope was Christ's elected representative on Earth, with the power to "create" kings as his subordinates.

But the real importance of this document has to do with the conversion of Constantine to christianity, and the subsequent adoption of christianity as the state religion.
Constantine supposedly writes this story of the events leading to his conversion. He says that he was suffering from leprosy and the pagan priests tell him to bathe in the warm blood of children and he will be cured.
He cant do that (he says) he doesnt have the heart to kill children for a cure.
So then he is visited by the spirits of Peter and Paul, who tell him to go to pope Sylvester and be cured, with the stipulation that he was to restore all the christian churches and he himself
must worship the "one true god".
So he does what he is told and is cured. (praise Jebus!!)
In gratitude for the cure, he issues as a "deed"
the "donation of constantine" that acknowledges the supremecy of "the See of Rome over earthly thrones as well as the other sees of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. Most importantly, however, Constantine granted to Pope Sylvester "both our palace and likewise all provinces and palaces and districts of the city of Rome and Italy and of the regions of the west."
This document firmly established Christianity as the formal official state religion of the empire.

Now the church acknowledges that: "the Donation of Constantine was a complete forgery composed to provide justification to the Papacy's territorial ambitions. Not only is the claim that Constantine "donated" vast expanses of land to the Bishop of Rome false, but also the story of his conversion. Constantine never had leprosy and was only baptized on his deathbed. The conduct of his life, including the murder of his own son Crispus, further casts suspicion on his Christian character", But for centuries Constantine was presented as a faithful and unwavering convert to Christianity.

But what is strange is the fact that it appears that Constantine did not invite pope Sylvester to attend the first ecumenical council, the "Council of Nicaea" and therefore the pope who was supposedly the spokesman for god, was excluded from any comments concerning the development of the doctrine of the "trinity" and had no say in the affairs of the council. So what we have here is a religious doctrine being espoused by a political figure based on some vision without even consulting gods (alledged) representatives on earth.

The result of the presentation of this document by the Vatican in 751, changed the nature of monarchy in the european countries. (oh yes, it had not surfaced in the long years between the 4th century and the seventh, wonder of wonders)

The king was no longer the guardian of his people who held the power of the monarchy through the royal bloodline, and instead became the ruler of the people at the beckon call of the Pope.
The rulers became lap dogs of the vatican, and Rome held the power to appoint their chosen flunky's regardless of the royal bloodline.

"Conventional history now refers to the "Dark Ages" - about which, we are told, there is so little documentary record. There is, however, any amount of surviving material from the era. The period is only "dark" because the Church and the imperial overlords decided to veil it from scrutiny, removing documentary evidence from the educational environment in order to perpetuate the myth that everyone and everything outside the Roman establishment was ignorant and barbaric."
Gardner.

The Church , operating under this "donation of Constantine" had little to do with the Nazarene style of Christianity which it officially superseded and had hitherto persecuted. It was an entirely new, hybrid form of male-dominated "churchianity" based upon a contrived apostolic succession of popes.

In the middle ages the church controlled (through the use of this document) almost all of the monarchies in Europe, and had assumed the power to influence governments, parliaments, and most of the educational establishments.
The Vatican also indirectly controlled the military forces of the above flunky's and they were used at the churches command.
The result of all this power base given to the church of Rome by their use of the donation document was papal inquisitions, tortures, executions, and witch hunts.

All because of a lie.....a great big lie, perpetrated by the church who was supposed to be the source of truth and benevolence.
It never ceases to amaze me that even after all these lies, misdirection, political subversiveness and just plain uncontrolled ambition by power hungry clergy (and their flunky's)that christians still put their faith in this institution and still believe that religion in it's basic form has been good for mankind.
And even worse they still think that "truth" is part of the doctrine of christianity and that their clergy speaks with the authority of their god.
I fail to understand how an institution can survive along side of this lie, especially one who preaches "truth" as the very foundation of the organization.
And as we have seen recently the lies continue, and are only brought to the public view when someone makes accusations that cannot be dismissed
out of hand by the leadership of the church.

When will people start to understand that religion was born of Man, and continues to be driven by Men and that god has nothing to do with the institutions of faith regardless of their brand name?
Wolf

Undercurrent

The Parable of J

J was dating S. J was very, very much, I wouldn't say "in love" with S, but was quite emotionally involved in the relationship. S was completely apathetic either way, and it was known to everyone but J (and probably, at some level, to J) that S was sleeping around. A lot.

Anyway, some boy was coming to visit S. Officially, this boy was an ex-boyfriend, but now they were just friends. In reality, everyone knew that every time this boy comes over, they aren't ex-anything for the duration of the trip. J knows this, but would like to pretend that S is so in love with him that she would forgo the "tradition".

Anyway, as the time for the boy's visit comes, J finds an excuse to be out of town for the duration of the visit. S could be sleeping with boy while he is gone, but he would never know it, so he could go on believing that S was faithful (not a good bet, BTW). On the other hand, if he was there, his belief that S would be faithful would be put to the test.

Moral: For some people, for some beliefs, not knowing whether or not the belief is true is preferable to risking finding out that the belief is false, and they just turn a blind eye to certain things to avoid that risk.

m.

Infinity Lover

I'd have to agree with Defiant Heretic there. The motive (or lack of) varies. In some sense religion is an earthly temptation, but not every.

Tercel

Believing because you want/it makes you feel better is just another form of Pascal's Wager, and I believe: logically sound. We believe all sorts of unprovable things such as the existence of other minds, the accuracy of memory, that the world has existed for more than 5 minutes, that the world really exists and is not a dream, halluciation or a "Matrix" - all of these we believe because it makes life easier, because the likely benefits of these assumptions outweight the likely losses (ie we are basically making Pascal's Wager on each of these assumptions), and we are no worse people for it. So I say if it makes people feel better to believe in God and they are getting something positive out of it - then that alone justifies them in doing it for the same reasons!

Goliath

Tercel,


For Pascal's Wager to be logically sound, you must prove the following lemma:

If a god exists, then only one god exists.

Good luck!

Sincerely,

Goliath

sighhswolf

I have to admit that you have a valid point Tercel
For the simple reason that there are so many people who just would not be able to function in the daily grind of life, in a world filled with
ecological timebombs, wars and destruction, natural disasters, and serial killers, famine and starvation,bigotry and intolerence without
a father figure to assure them that there is something better for them later.
Hope......either comes from within (created by reasoning with the assistance of charitable acts), or it must be "gifted" to those who lack the fortitude to face the harsh reality of existence on the planet.
Wolf

Starboy

Hi Baidarka,

Isn’t that the essence of fiction, the willingness to suspend disbelief for a moment of escape into another world? I do not see the harm in that as long as it doesn’t get out of hand. When people can no longer distinguish fiction from reality and act on it, I think it would be obvious to anyone, that nothing but trouble can come of it.

Starboy